Posts

In Case T-336/08 Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon) [2010] EUECJ T-336/08, the General Court dismissed Lindt & Sprunglli's action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 June 2008 (Case R 1332/2005-4) concerning its application for registration of a three-dimensional mark comprising the shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon as a Community trade mark on the ground that the applications are devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of art 7 (1) (b) of the Community trade mark regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark).

The manufacturer appealed against that decision to the Court of Justice of the European Union essentially on the ground that there was no evidence for the conclusion that the "the shape of a sitting or crouching rabbi…

"the Patents County Court was established to handle the smaller, shorter, less complex, less important, lower value actions and the procedures applicable in the court are designed particularly for cases of that kind. The court aims to provide cheaper, speedier and more informal procedures to ensure that small and medium sized enterprises, and private individuals, are not deterred from innovation by the potential cost of litigation to safeguard their rights."

Judge Birss QC remarked at paragraph [4] of his judgment:

"One might ask whether a case between two multinational corporations is suitable for the PCC. Since neither side suggested the matter should be transferred, the question did not arise. I can …

In Stannard v Reay [1967] RPC 589, and Stacey v 2020 Communications [1991] FSR 49.it had been established that even a very modest goodwill can support an action for passing off. Just how modest such goodwill can be was tested in Lumos Skincare Ltd v Sweet Squared Ltd and Others [2012] EWPCC 22 (10 May 2012).

In Sullivan v Bristol Film Studios Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 570 (3 May 2012) the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a strike out of a claim for copyright, moral rights and performers' rights infringement and breach of contract under CPR 3.4 by the Chancery interim applications judge sitting in Bristol. The claim was struck out as an abuse of the process of the court not because it was bound to fail, but because even if it were to succeed the costs of fighting it would be out of all proportion to the amount that the claimant was likely to recover.

The claim was brought by a hip hop artist who had contracted with the defendant film company to make a video. The film was to have been a joint venture. The claimant, Tony Sullivan (also known as Rudey Soloman ("Mr. Soloman"), made the sound track and appeared in the film. The film company made the film in return for a share of the sales or other revenues. After the film had been made, it was uploaded to YouTube. Unfortun…

In Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team SDN BHD and Others [2012] EWHC 616 (Ch) (21 March 2012), Force India sued Aerolab and Fondmetal Technologies which had previously carried out wind tunnel tests and aerodynamic development work for Force India for breach of confidence. Force India's allegation was that those companies had used information gained from such testing and development to help design a car for the first defendant,1 Malaysia and its British subsidiary. Also sued was the former Chief Technical Officer of Force India who left to join 1 Malaysia. There was also a counterclaim by Fondmetal for 846,230 euro for unpaid fees.Unusually for the Chancery Division, the master had directed the questions of liability and quantum of damages to be determined at the same hearing. Force India had originally claimed damages of £15, 255,583 which claim was later reduced to £13, 771, 419.

The Issues
Aerolab admitted that there had been some copying of Force…